Let's critique this gun

[Mike Brooks]

I'm waiting for Art to chime in and say that it looks great but it needs a "repair."   

I think you need to grung-ify it some more.  hahahahahahhahahaha

I really like the piece of wood you used for this, and whatever you did to bring the figure out is working 100%.  I LOVE red maple.

[Mike Brooks]

I'm waiting for Art to chime in and say that it looks great but it needs a "repair."   

I think you need to grung-ify it some more.  hahahahahahhahahaha

I really like the piece of wood you used for this, and whatever you did to bring the figure out is working 100%.  I LOVE red maple.

It's a grade 6 dense piece of red maple from Dunlap. Pretty much my default maple stock these days. Stained it with Jimmy Kliens stains.

[Mike Brooks]

Mike............just had to go back to the pictures of this piece of _______.     I never cared for that triggerguard, but it is
what it is.   I also would have changed the trigger, get rid of some of the junk on the back side, leaving a  little round lump at the top, the curl on the bottom is OK.   After all of this criticism of this gun, if you decide to throw it in the trash can
just let me know............Don

Don, This is one of my favorite T-guards for this king of gun, Dutch utility musket guard. Another one of my favs is the one that is very similar but chopped of square at the back, super funky and both sold by Reeves. Yep, should have worked that trigger over for sure....must have got lazy.

[Mike Brooks]

As a few other's have  mentioned the lock seems to be tipped off where it should be to me eye.

But just maybe that's a lesson for us that strive to get everything perfect in our minds.

Marching to your own drummer has made your work ( from what I have seen over time ) unique which is something that many of us would like to achieve but might not take the risks or think outside the box enough to do so.

I love seeing non standard work.

After several comments about where the lock tail is I started to question myself on this. So I got out Grinslade's book and started to look. Seems the lock tail can go just about anywhere on these. High, low or in the middle are all correct. Standard work...LOL! This kind of work seems standard to me, but I live in a cornfield with no other human contact so I may be a little off my rocker....

[Eric Kettenburg]

The bottom line is that pretty much everything I've read here (as well as the comment I made) is really a matter of personal aesthetic preference, and that's fine.  The gun itself is as right as rain for what it is intended to represent.  When I look through Grinslade's book, which has been mentioned a lot, I don't like every piece in there.  Some I think, "WOW!" and others I think, "eh..."  But that's a personal preference - it doesn't make any of them any more or less right for what they are.  So, jmho, but when I view something like this, I try to view it with this type of mindset.  You could put this next to some crazy art piece by Monte Mandarino, or Jerry Huddleston, and start with the, "well, if Mike had done this" or "if Mike had done that," but if he had done this or that, then it wouldn't be what it is anymore.  So for what it is, it's really a perfect example of what it is.

 

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

all that being said, it has been an educational thread.   For a good example of critique see this thread, especially Mike Brooks' comments  http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=22403.0#bot

[Mike Brooks]

Anyone interested in critiquing one of my rifles this coming week? This has been a great exercise for me and I'd appreciate you fellas having a go at one of my rifles. I'll warn you it won't be "standard work" either....

[Acer Saccharum]

Does it have to be all about Mike Brooks? 

Seriously, I appreciate the time you took to do this exercise. You put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, but you're not the only one to learn something. I believe we all did. I appreciate your candor, and willingness to 'go first', lead by example.

Thanks, Tom

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Put that rifle up there Mike  It will be fun!

[Mike Brooks]

Does it have to be all about Mike Brooks? 

Seriously, I appreciate the time you took to do this exercise. You put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, but you're not the only one to learn something. I believe we all did. I appreciate your candor, and willingness to 'go first', lead by example.

Thanks, Tom

Well Tom , I'm confident in my work but with my isolation it is nice to have some honest input into what I'm doing. I think it would be easy to get lost in my own world with out touching base with the rest of the gunbuilders out east and west.  It's been nice to see other's opinions on my work. Good experience for me.

[Acer Saccharum]

For me, I learned a lot more about the different perspectives of critique. This thread is a goldmine of material for those wishing to have their work critiqued, or wish to engage in critiquing others' work.

[Jim Kibler]

With regards to tapering of the forestock, I've found a few things to be helpful.  Of course starting with a barrel pattern having a good sized breech is important.  I'm not familiar with many of the commercially available smooth bore patterns, but my impression is that the breech size on many is on the small size, especially when comparing them to a typical English barrel of the period.  The stock pattern along the lower toe can be designed such that there is a decent amount of height at the breech area as well.  Finally, one of the most important factors is to position the ramrod groove very close to the barrel.  As little as 1/8" can be good.  It is not uncommon to see the groove follow the barrel on original guns of the period.  This creates a relatively uniform web thickness along the upper forestock.  With a barrel having a large breech and small forward section, it's necessary to bow the stock slightly while drilling the hole to prevent the hole from running too high, if a groove is set up this way.  It's really no trouble though.  After studying some English fowling pieces closely and building a version of my own, this is a practice I've been following even on some longrifles I've built.  I think it can add a lot of aesthetic appeal,  especially if the wrist has a fair amount of taper toward the comb as well.

[Mike Brooks]

With regards to tapering of the forestock, I've found a few things to be helpful.  Of course starting with a barrel pattern having a good sized breech is important.  I'm not familiar with many of the commercially available smooth bore patterns, but my impression is that the breech size on many is on the small size, especially when comparing them to a typical English barrel of the period.  The stock pattern along the lower toe can be designed such that there is a decent amount of height at the breech area as well.  Finally, one of the most important factors is to position the ramrod groove very close to the barrel.  As little as 1/8" can be good.  It is not uncommon to see the groove follow the barrel on original guns of the period.  This creates a relatively uniform web thickness along the upper forestock.  With a barrel having a large breech and small forward section, it's necessary to bow the stock slightly while drilling the hole to prevent the hole from running too high, if a groove is set up this way.  It's really no trouble though.  After studying some English fowling pieces closely and building a version of my own, this is a practice I've been following even on some longrifles I've built.  I think it can add a lot of aesthetic appeal,  especially if the wrist has a fair amount of taper toward the comb as well.

Interesting Jim. This barrel is small at the beech. 1 1/16" if I recall and slowish taper through the oct. section. The "Griffin" styled barrels from Getz and Colerain have a large breech and a very fast taper which helps with the archetecture. I have left a little extra wood on the bottom on straighter barreled english guns to get the tapered effect. I must say you're a far braver ram rod hole driller than me, I send all my stuff out. Thanks for your participation.

[Mike Brooks]

For me, I learned a lot more about the different perspectives of critique. This thread is a goldmine of material for those wishing to have their work critiqued, or wish to engage in critiquing others' work.

Yep, this is a good one. It's been great for me to see how others see my stuff. I'm pretty isolated these days and the opinions of my peers has been invaluable. I would suggest others offer their wok up for critique, it's a good experience.

[Acer Saccharum]

I will do so, on the completion of my next build. It's one of those things where EVERYONE learns (unless you know it all already). I, too, am isolated, in a gun building sense. Most gunners up my way are trap/skeet/bird/deer/self-defense kind of people. Not too much awareness of the long gun.

Thanks for stickin' yer chickin' neck out first.....

[Jim Kibler]

One other thing that I've been doing to that helps a touch with the tapered look is to have the upper line of the forestock start about the mid point of the barrel at the lock and then taper down to a little below centerline before the entry point in a sweeping curve.  Something sort of slight, but I like it.  What's interesting about all this stuff to me is that the more you dig into thit, you find subtleties that don't always fall in line with conventional modern thought.

It's good you've started this thread Mike.  I don't know a lot about the style of gun your's emulates, but I do like how it looks.  Good stuff.  Especially when considering how quickly you likely built the gun.  Might be good to mention the time you have in it.

Jim

[KLMoors]

I'd be interested in the time issue too Mike, if you don't mind. Having been in house building for so long, trying to find more effecient methods that achieve a good result is an obsession of mine.

[b bogart]

I'll be willing to post mine too, although please do not expect the level of workmanship tha is seen here. I'll be the guenia pig for those less skilled and practiced! I expect long lists of improvements!

[hanshi]

In all seriousness I like the style of the gun but really not much more than that.  However, it certainly can't be considered a "pig" at all.  In fact I only have one basic question and that is, was the gun suppose to be a close copy or even a rendition of an existing gun or style?  I'm still a bit unclear on that.  Be that as it may, I don't think there's anyone who wouldn't be quite well served by it.

[Acer Saccharum]

Bruce, a vital part of the critique process is to judge the work, and to point out the things well done, and to help the builder see where improvements can be made. This is not a showcase for the builders 'who have arrived', but a forum those who are sincerely interested in improving their work.

I have been building for many years, but up here in upstate NY, I don't get to see many original guns. I have always honed my building skills, but am lacking in the architectural aspects of different schools. This process will be good for me to go through.

[Mike Brooks]

$#@*, caught now..... I  discuss prices all the time but always avoid discussing time. Too afraid my customers will think I'm over charging them.
This gun was built from a blank with the barrel and ram rod channel already done. I have 18 to20 hours in this gun maybe a bit less. That doesn't necessarily mean I can crank out two of these a week.....too easily distracted by other things. And remember, no buttplate, sideplate, entry thinble or nose piece.

[Mike Brooks]

Bruce, a vital part of the critique process is to judge the work, and to point out the things well done, and to help the builder see where improvements can be made. This is not a showcase for the builders 'who have arrived', but a forum those who are sincerely interested in improving their work.

I have been building for many years, but up here in upstate NY, I don't get to see many original guns. I have always honed my building skills, but am lacking in the architectural aspects of different schools. This process will be good for me to go through.

Well, I figure I "arrived" about 1996 when I jumped into the abyss and started doing this full time. I'm checking to see if I'm still in touch and not making mistakes I can't see. I feel this type of thing is good for those that have "arrived" as well as those that are still traveling there.

[Mike Brooks]

In all seriousness I like the style of the gun but really not much more than that.  However, it certainly can't be considered a "pig" at all.  In fact I only have one basic question and that is, was the gun suppose to be a close copy or even a rendition of an existing gun or style?  I'm still a bit unclear on that.  Be that as it may, I don't think there's anyone who wouldn't be quite well served by it.

Yes, it is a copy of a New England fowling gun ca. 1770-80-'s. Not a  bench copy of a specific gun, but a creation of a gun that fits into that area. It would not look out of place if transported back in time to that area. The specific area would be Mass, Conn, or RI. I think it's dead nuts on, as do others here.
 Refer to Grinslades book for many examples.
 To tell you the truth Hanshi, it's one of my favorite guns I've made in a while along with a small group of other stuff I have made in the past few years.

[nosrettap1958]

I don't like the signature on top of the barrel, looks rushed and doesn't have that natural flow you would expect. Other than that I really like this smoothbore especially that long, slim wrist you gave it.

[JDK]

$#@*, caught now.....I have 18 to20 hours in this gun maybe a bit less.

We're the ones who aught to be saying $#@*....#@!! $#@*!!!  I think I spend more time standing back and staring at my progress from step to step than that!!!  And that's between each step.  Guess by the time one's built as many as you are more sure of when to move on.

You have mad skills Mike!!!  I'm still a fan

Enjoy, J.D.